[ Previous Tip ] [ Mac Tips ] [ Next Tip ]

Note: This page is a running commentary on my experiences and expectations about computer upgrades. Since it was originally written, it has been edited and updated many times to keep it current. The timeline may seem a bit jumpy in places but new information was added in the place that it seemed most appropriate for cohesive story.

It's mid-2005 and I thinking about my next computer. I've been buying and upgrading personal computers since 1979. My very first computer was a 16 bit LSI-11 with a 10 meg hard disk and a romping 60 kB of RAM. At this time an "advanced" personal computer was an S-100 box with some 8 bit processor in it. The LSI-11 computer was fine for UCSD Pascal software development and it made me a bunch of money. Since then I've gone through Z-80's, 8086's, and the whole variety of Motorola processors in a bunch of Macintosh's. Although I've never personally owned a DOS/Wintel machine and probably won't ever, I do use Wintel stuff at work, but only because I don't have a choice. If they offered me a Mac (fat chance), I'd take it in a heartbeat. Windows is a POS. A day doesn't go by without Windows finding some way to irritate me.

Over the years, I've developed a philosophy on upgrades. Since there is always a newer and better computer to buy, the question is how much better does it have to be to justify buying it. One can spend a fortune "upgrading" to marginally better hardware with relatively little performance improvement. In order to more or less keep up with the times and still not break the bank, I've developed some personal upgrade rules.

After many years of iterations I had settled on what I call the "4X" rule. In order to justify the expense the new computer or upgrade needs to have 4 times the capability in processing speed, RAM and disk as compared to the existing computer. This has worked pretty well and kept me at least near the state of the art. By the time that those criteria are met, the graphics hardware has usually improved significantly as well.

When I buy a computer, I plan to use it pretty much box stock. I usually upgrade RAM because new computers never come with enough, but the rest of the hardware stays the way that it came. Open architectures that allow various pieces to be upgraded piecemeal don't hold much appeal for me. One can spend a fortune on "goodies" to enhance the performance of a computer. I'd rather wait and save my pennies to get a whole new computer in one shot and get everything upgraded at once.

I've done CPU upgrades on several older Macintoshes, taking them from PPC 601's or 603e's to G3's. These all worked and materially extended the usefulness of the computers, but they were all a hassle with special drivers and some hardware incompatibilities or kludges required. I don't want to mess with this again, especially since the newest computers have so much CPU smoke out of the box such that they won't need an upgrade during their normal service lives.

One serious problem with Macintosh computers is that they last so damn long virtually eliminating a major forcing function for an upgrade. The hardware seems to be reliable and the OS and apps stay useful for a very long period of time. I can still run applications dating from 1984 on my PowerBook G4. I have used the original 128k Macintosh for some software development and the fat Mac, MacPlus, Mac II, Quadra 700 and PowerMac 6100 at work (before my workplace turned to the dark side). My oldest personal Mac, a Classic, is over 15 years old and it still works and runs OS 7.5.5 which was released many years after the computer. Even though it is not of much value anymore I keep it around anyway. I've got several others in the 10 to 12 year range, all of which still work and none of which get used.

If an old computer craps out it is easier to justify a replacement. However, it if still plugs along it is harder to justify an upgrade to a newer model. PC hardware, especially the cheaper stuff, seems to fall by the wayside in maybe 3 years or so, either by hardware failure or because the newest OS and apps won't run on it well or at all. Macs seem to keep their utility for 7 or more years. By that time, they have fallen WAY behind even though they may still work fine in comparison to what they did when they were new.

As of 2003 or so my 4x rule started falling apart. Computers in the olden days were always so short of resources that improvements in any performance parameter really helped. Newer computers have grown in capability faster than many applications can use those capabilities so that many newer computers actually have excess resources for most tasks. One exception is gaming where the newer games seem to require the most available smoke and then some.

Old computers also do not hold their value very well so that selling them after a couple of years usually amounts to a near total loss. I either keep them (haven't figured out why yet) or give them to a local school. This means that unless one cycles through computers less than every year, selling the old ones doesn't do much to help offset the cost of a new one.

My immediate previous computer was a 500 MHz G3 iBook with 640 meg of RAM and 10 gig of disk. It was clear that the computer was hurting for processor performance and disk even when it was new, but the amount of RAM seemed to be adequate. When I upgraded, I nearly met the 4x rule. My current computer is a 1.25 GHz Aluminum G4 PowerBook with 2 Gigs of RAM and 80 gig of disk. It is almost 4x as fast based on what it does, it has over 3x the RAM and 8x the disk.

For the next upgrade I could really blow some bucks and get a dual or quad 2.5 GHz G5 that would meet the 4x requirement for performance. However, for RAM and disk I'm not sure that another 4x is really needed at this time. It is clear that I don't really need the RAM that is in my PowerBook now. I really haven't noticed an overwhelming improvement over the 512 meg of RAM that it came with. There have been times where the extra RAM helps, but it is probably not worth what it cost (about $400). I could use some more disk, but I don't need 4x even after almost 2 years. Another 50% would probably cover me for quite a while. I don't keep video on the computer which would be the next up and coming disk hog. I have no plans or desire to dive into HD TV because I hardly watch TV anyway. Besides, this is what iPods are for now. Home video could eat disk in large chunks. I've found that I need about 40G free to work with 2 hours of conventional home video, HD would probably triple that.

What is really complicating the issue is that this PowerBook G4 is still adequate. It took 2 years but I've done what I wanted to do when I bought it and I really don't need more smoke especially since the intensive tasks that I bought it for are, for the most part, complete.

In 2003 after two years of service, I ran the iBook out of gas and I needed a new computer. I had used the iBook to create about half of my music collection. I was able to rip all my existing CDs and digitize part of my LP's and cassette tapes. I could have done them all except that my iTunes Library outgrew the disk in the iBook. I bought the PowerBook G4 the day that it was announced in September 2003 to finish my music library, to digitize my video library (with the aid of a new mini-DV camcorder and an old 8 mm analog camcorder) and to digitize my still photo collection (with the aid of an inexpensive scanner) and then to organize my entire digital still photo collection. I also wanted to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein which was totally unusable on the iBook. It's taken me two years, but I have about 5000 tunes, 19,000 photos and 20 years of home video in digital form (consuming about 600 DVD's, two copies each of the rendered movies and the original iMovie projects). I played through RtCW twice. The G4 was up to the tasks although sometimes it took some careful disk resource management to accomplish it.

I really don't NEED a new computer because this G4 has already done the heavy lifting but I'm going to get one anyway when I really feel the need for a new toy. So, what to do for the next computer upgrade which is probably more than a year away anyway?

After using laptops exclusively since 2001 and most of the time since 1995 (PowerBook 100, PowerBook 1400, original dual USB iBook and 15" Aluminum PowerBook), I figured that I was probably going to stay with laptops and never buy another desktop computer. After using this PowerBook for two years, I have had to rethink that position. The PowerBook is a great computer and it has been completely reliable, but it has one serious inherent and unavoidable problem.

It is too fast.

If there is one thing that a laptop is supposed to do that a desktop can't, it is to run on a lap and without external power. However, the faster a laptop computer is, the more power it consumes and the shorter it's battery life will be. The battery is the one difficult to replace resource that I need when I am on the road. The battery life of this computer is barely 3 hours if I really push conservation. 2 hours is more typical. My older iBook will do better than that (about 5 hours) primarily because it is slow and has a small screen. For most of what I do away from my desk, a small slower computer is adequate. The iBook is lighter, smaller, easier to pack and carry, runs cooler, fits in constrained spaces (such as airline coach seats) better and runs longer than the PowerBook.

Another serious problem related to speed is heat. Most of the power that comes from the battery has to leave has heat. The balance of the shed energy is visible light that radiates from the display. The PowerBook, even in reduced performance mode, simply runs too hot to keep on my lap, even though it is called a "laptop" computer. It should be more correctly called a portable desktop computer as it simply cannot be used on a lap for any extended period of time. The iBook, slow as it is, is much more user friendly when it comes to case temperature.

If I want a real fast laptop computer, I'm not going to get good battery life and it'll run too hot. Fast computers can be slowed to reduce power consumption and heat, but they will still consume more power and get hotter than a slower computer set to reduce consumption.

As a portable desktop computer, the Powerbook is outstanding. I use it that way when I travel between my home and mountain cabin. It sits on a desk in both places. If I'm going sit at my desk to work, I prefer to use the Powerbook. It does everything well enough and the screen is big and bright. However, as a laptop computer, the thing simply sucks. It gets too hot to keep on my lap. Apple pretty much admits this simple fact on their support pages. If I want to sit on the couch and watch a DVD or do some light work, I prefer to use the iBook. It can sit on my lap comfortably without getting more than just barely warm. The metal case of the PowerBook is good for providing a heat sink for the computer but bad as a thermal interface to the user. The case will conduct heat over large areas of the computer where it can be shed by convection. However the bottom, which tends to get the hottest, is the surface that rests on the lap. Even sitting on a desk, the upper surface can get too warm for comfort. I have found that placing the computer on the edges of two mousepads allows some air to circulate under the computer and the whole thing runs significantly cooler.

The iBook dissipates about 2/3 as much heat as the PowerBook when running and it has a polycarbonate case with much poorer thermal conductivity. The internally generated heat doesn't get to the outer surface nearly as well and the bottom of the computer gets only warm, not hot. However, this means that the computer is not as well cooled. If it made as much heat as the PowerBook, the fan would have to run much more often. Actually, in 5 years, I've only heard the fan on this iBook come on once, this was due to a rouge printer driver that went nuts and consumed ALL of the CPU for an extended period of time. Even with better convection cooling, the PowerBook fan comes on quite regularly when it is doing any significant work, sometimes BOTH fans come on.

I don't see any way around this heat and power problem with ANY kind of high performance laptop computer unless there is a significant change in the power/performance ratio of the CPU, more efficient display backlighting and better management of the power consumption of the disk. The performance that is packed into laptops these days simply outstrips their source of power and their ability to shed heat. Most laptops allow, or automatically switch to, reduced CPU performance to reduce power consumption and heat when lightly loaded with further reductions possible when operated on the battery. Even this is typically not enough as the speed reduction provided is not extreme enough. Further, laptops with larger screens and faster graphics electronics are even harder to trim down.

The ultimate solution to the power and heat problem is to consume less power and therefore shed less heat. However, this comes at a cost. The computer cannot be expected to have performance approaching that of a desktop machine that doesn't have such power and heat constraints.

In the PC world, there is a device called a "DTR" or DeskTop Replacement computer. This is just a laptop on steroids, so much so that it can't be used on the lap at all. I just read a review of a dual core AMD unit that weighs in at about 15 lbs, consumes up to 200 watts of AC power and runs well less than an hour on its battery. It also costs close to $4,000. It has 3 fans on the bottom so that one cannot even put it on a lap without blocking the air flow to the fans. This is nuts. If one should want desktop performance, then one should simply buy a desktop machine. It is this kind of beast that Apple has refused to design because, IMHO, it is an ungraceful kludge. This is the primary reason that there never was a G5 PowerBook.

CMOS processors consume more power the faster that they are clocked. However, the relationship isn't linear. Power grows much faster than speed so that power consumption can go up by a factor of 4 at twice the clock speed. This means that a dual core processor at a given clock speed will do the same work as a single processor at twice the clock speed but at half the power PROVIDED that the OS can dole out processes to each processor efficiently and actually use both cores. This is the route that high end laptops will have to take to provide better performance without melting down. Fortunately, the Mac OS is pretty good at keeping multiprocessor machines load balanced, at least for dual core machines.

Until the CPU inside the laptop evolves to be both faster and have lower power consumption, I don't see this getting any better. I believe that desktop computers will continue to get faster with increases in power consumption and the larger laptops will get marginally faster with constant to slightly increasing power consumption. It will be interesting to see what path the smaller laptops take. The combination of significantly higher performance and significantly lower power consumption at the same time will depend on how well the CPU makers do their job and how well the computer manufacturers can design power conserving operational modes.

This graph is similar to one published by DEC in the 70's describing the evolution of the VAX product line, although on their curve, power consumption was replaced by cost. Not a lot has changed in 30 years.

I'd like to digress for a bit and discuss convergence and divergence. These are new-speak buzzwords describing the feature sets of personal electronic devices. A convergent device tries to combine (converge) several different functions in one device, such as an iTunes enabled cellphone/camera, a pda/cellphone/camera or an MP3 player/FM radio/voice recorder. A divergent device tries to separate functions and optimize the device's performance for one particular function. Examples are an original Sony Walkman or an iPod. Divergent devices are designed to do just one thing but in the best possible way.

IMHO, convergent devices are typically less than spectacular. The design compromises required to blend disparate functions leads to convoluted user interfaces and less usability for any particular function. On the other hand, if one desires all of the functions of a convergent device but implemented in divergent devices, then one often needs to carry around several different devices.

If one function of a convergent device becomes obsolete or stops functioning, then the whole device must be replaced, usually at some significant cost. With divergent devices, each function can be replaced or upgraded individually by replacing only that device.

The individual functions of convergent devices typically provide a much lower level of performance than that function implemented in a divergent device. A cellphone/MP3 player/camera usually takes worse pictures than the cheapest dedicated camera, typically has limited utility as a music player and might actually work well as a cellphone until the usage of the other functions flattens the battery.

I typically don't need all of the functions of a convergent device on the same day. I can't take a camera with me to work so any device that contains one (which is most of them now) is useless to me. I don't carry a cellphone with me so having one combined with my music player doesn't do anything for me at all. Overall, I have been more satisfied with divergent technology because I can pick the function that I need to carry on any given day. Further, that function tends to work better.

This discussion of divergence and convergence brings me back to the high end laptop. This device tries to be convergent in combining the performance and display characteristics of a desktop device with the portability of a laptop. It doesn't, and can't, succeed at either job because the requirements are just too diverse and often mutually exclusive.

I am beginning to think that the hot setup for the next computer upgrade will be two computers, a small lightweight laptop optimized for minimal power consumption to take on the road and a desktop optimized for performance to do the intensive stuff such as video rendering and heavy gaming. The middle of the road high performance laptop will do neither job as well.

A high end laptop that is powerful and sort of portable tends to cost as much or more than a good desktop and a low end laptop combined. For example, as of early 2006, a 20" iMac costs $1699, and a G4 iBook costs $999 which totals $2698. A 17" MacBook Pro costs....$2799 or $101 more than the other two combined. The MacBook Pro is as fast as the iMac, but it has a smaller screen (same pixel count, but smaller pixels) and less than half the disk. It's way bigger than an iBook and runs MUCH hotter.

My old iBook won't last forever. Although I bought it in 2001 it still works and runs the latest version of the Mac OS. It'll probably be several years before the G3 iBook is not supported by a new OS release but that will happen eventually. At some point in time, the older hardware must be left behind. The original Mac used a Motorola 68000, support for that was dropped after OS 7.5.5. Support for the PPC 601 was dropped as of MacOS X. Even support for the earliest G3 based desktops was dropped as of 10.3.

This iBook has been seriously abused. It has been dropped hard twice so that the screen doesn't close squarely and sometimes it gets flakey if the screen is moved when it is on, but I still use it nearly every day as a bedside computer (for surfing during fits of insomnia). Someday, it'll die or become too obsolete and I will want to replace it. My Powerbook can't replace it well because it simply runs too hot to use while resting on my chest in bed. I can't easily reach the trackpad over the edge of the computer while I'm in bed because the computer is too wide. Further, it's 15" screen is too big. I can't easily see the whole thing with my glasses off at close range. I am nearsighted so that "close range" is really close. Further, the PowerBook doesn't travel as well as the iBook, it is just too big and it's not nearly the biggest laptop around. The PowerBook does perform as a portable desktop very well and I intend to be using it for years in that function when I travel back and forth between my home and mountain cabin.

There is one feature that is found on all laptops that is not found on any desktop. This is the built in Uninterruptable Power Supply in the form of the battery. A UPS can be really handy in areas with unstable AC power. They can be purchased for a desktop that will at least run it long enough to save all of the open files and shut down cleanly.

I'm assuming that Apple will eventually design a sub-notebook something like the Sony Viao laptops or this NEC MobilePro 800 which are much lighter than even the iBook. The NEC in the picture has the right size and weight, a good keyboard and it runs 10 hours on a new battery. It's about an inch smaller in length and width and about a quarter inch thinner than an iBook. An iBook weighs about 5 lbs, this guy weighs 2.5 lbs. However, it also has some serious issues. First, it runs WIndows CE which is not acceptable. Second it has no disk at all, it runs from static RAM although a MicroDrive could be plugged into one of the CF card slots. If Apple could make something like this but with a 40+G disk, an optical drive, wireless and OS X, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

NAND flash RAM is coming down in cost and going up in reliability very quickly. It may be possible to dispense with the disk altogether and use only flash RAM in place of a disk. Another approach would be use a few gigabytes of flash RAM to buffer a future high capacity microdrive to control power consumption.

My 500 MHz iBook is my current road computer. It does the job marginally well and it has fairly low value so that if it is damaged or stolen, the loss isn't very great. My wife's 1 GHz iBook G4 is nearly ideal except that it is still a little too heavy. It won't burn DVDs but then again I really haven't had the need to do that on the road. It is fast enough and still runs about 5 hours on a new battery.

What do I do on the road that allows me to use a low end computer? Well, obviously not much that is really CPU intensive, see the table below. I'm not a "road warrior" who might need more smoke to take care of business while away for extended periods. I need to support personal tasks, mostly while "off duty" on business travel or while on vacation, which I plan to do more of upon retirement. A souped up PDA might work for some people, but I've got a PDA with an integral keyboard (Sony Clie). I also have a full size folding keyboard for it. It's small and light and travels well, but it doesn't do the job. The screen is just too small to render web pages adequately, it has no network connectivity and it doesn't do an adequate job of editing photos. Any kind of video is a lost cause. I tend to write web pages, such as this one, whenever I feel like it and I prefer to back up my still photos. With enough disk, or an external USB disk or hard disk based iPod, and a DVD burner in my proposed ideal laptop computer, I could edit and back up video while on vacation as well.

The key to "optimizing" a true laptop is to trim it down so that it is just barely good enough. Any extra performance beyond the minimum will result in excess battery drain, heat, size and weight. The real trick will be figuring out how to market the "lower" performance as a good thing.

It is interesting to speculate on how "light weight" a computer can be and still do an adequate job at various CPU intensive tasks. Fortunately, true speculation is not required. I already have a set of lower powered machines that can be compared, the G3 iBook, a G4 iBook and a G4 PowerBook. These machines bracket the performance range that I think is optimal.

^*Since Leopard Graphics Update 1.0, will play iTunes downloaded movies well. Still skips on 720p content.

From this table, it is pretty clear that for most video playback (not including H.264 HD content) the G3 iBook isn't cutting it, the PowerBook is somewhat overpowered and the 1 GHz G4 is very close to just right. It's the real time stuff where speed matters. If the G4 iBook could play all web video formats without skipping frames, it would be fully good enough. Since it will do Quicktime and DivX movies fine, but hurts with WMV, it is probably the performance of the player that is the difference.

H.264 HD seems to be another story, none of these G3 and G4 PPC based computers can handle 720p or even 480p playback. Apple claims that a G5 or better is needed.

For WMV playback, these computers are using Flip4Mac which is a damn sight better than the Microsoft Windows Media player, but it is still not quite good enough. I am assuming that Flip4Mac will get better with time as they optimize the code for the Macintosh, something that Microsoft never did. The PowerBook is only a little faster than the iBook and it does WMV (using Flip4Mac 2.0.2) well enough. Even the PowerBook tended to be marginal with the Microsoft Windows Media player.

The non-real time activities don't matter as much. These get done, just slower. Many of these tasks aren't sensitive to performance, the iMac is no better at text editing than the old iBook. Both get the job done with no perceptible difference in user experience, therefore both are adequate. In this kind of case, faster isn't better at all.

From this data, I would conclude that a Core Solo processor at 1+ GHz would be fully adequate for a sub-notebook like system. The lowest clock speeds for these processors is currently 1.6 GHz, I am assuming that they could be clocked down with reduced core voltage when running from the battery to conserve power even more.

It is obvious to me that one magic computer can never do it all in anything close to an optimal fashion. I'm thinking that a lower end iBook (or smaller) like thing and a higher end iMac like thing may be the best compromise between performance and portability without breaking the bank. If a path is taken to split the functions of a computer into a desktop computer optimized for performance and an ultra-light laptop computer optimized for portability, then a problem presents itself.

There is a downside to running two different computers to do similar things at different times. If you use one laptop for everything, then all your files follow you around. If you use TWO computers and you are not careful, you'll find the most recent version of a particular file may be on the OTHER computer and not easily accessible.

There are many utilities that allow two disks to be "synchronized" in whole or in part to allow the most recent versions of any file to be stored on both computers. This is really a partial solution as synchronization software can produce irritating results under some conditions. If you want to delete a file, you may have to delete it from BOTH computers before it will actually go away. Files that are updated on both computers since the last time that they were synchronized are problematic, the software usually cannot actually merge the files so it may keep both versions with one or both renamed in some way. This stuff is manageable with good synchronization software. Large folder based data structures, like iMovie projects, iPhoto Libraries and iTunes Libraries can get weird if just parts of the structures are updated. Databases, such as an address book file, need special attention so that all the entries get properly merged. .Mac subscribers can do some of this through .Mac. There is a software product that manages Sync Services between two or more computers on a local network. This is SyncTogether from MarkSpace. This product is new as of this writing (17Mar07) and, like most 1.0 versions, it could use a little work. It does function however, and keeps the stuff that support Sync Services, like the Address Book, iCal and Safari bookmarks synchronized.

On the desktop side, good processor smoke is pretty easy to obtain. For the next few years, all desktops will be running dual (or more) core processors with clocks running between 2 and 3 GHz even in the less expensive versions. The more expensive desktop towers are now running 4 total cores on two chips. The 2.5 GHz 4 core G5 PowerMac (late 2005) does this but it has to be water cooled. Things could get really crazy when CPUs come in 4 or more cores per chip. There are rumors of plans at Intel to put 16 cores on a chip. The IBM cell processor to be used in the PS 3 has nine cores. Moore's law may yet have legs. Instead of just raw clock speed, the scaling factor to achieve better performance is via parallelism. The assumption is that device geometries will continue to shrink from 90 nm, to 65 nm, to 45 nm to 32 nm or less allowing more cores to be placed on realizable die sizes so that die yield, and therefore cost, can be maintained. These systems would blow away my 4x rule for processor performance, at least for tasks where a multiple CPU system could be utilized. It's not entirely clear how most applications can make use of many cores efficiently, but we'll see such systems anyway because core count, not clock speed will be the new selling point in the higher end computers.

All this previous discussion of power conservation and heat has pretty much nothing to do with desktop computers. Except for the marginal cost of AC power, a computer can burn as much as it needs to with little impact if the thermal design of the computer can handle it. The one downside is that, unless designed properly, the fans needed to provide cooling can make quite a bit of noise. More efficient computers will need less cooling and therefore tend to run with less noise.

A medium to high performance desktop and an ultra-light laptop will have significantly different requirements. The table below indicates what kind of features that I would want on these systems. Note that neither system is the highest or lowest end systems that are likely to exist in their respective classes.

Dual cores will probably find their way into laptops, but a dual core computer is really two computers on one chip. It takes more power to run the second core and that power has to leave via heat. This does not sound like a good deal to me. This makes the dual core desktop and a single core power stingy laptop idea seem even better. A dual core laptop would only make sense if one core could shut down completely and the other core significantly under clocked for reduced power consumption while running off the battery.

Big disk is easy to obtain in a desktop, 250 gig is available in a 2005 model iMac. I assume that the disks will continue to get bigger and external disks are easy to add to a desktop computer. As of 2005, laptop disks top out at 100 gig and are growing more slowly, a small computer could make do with less. Even slow, low power 40 gig drive would be marginally enough for on-the-road work if a large photo library or video is not involved.

External drives are easy to use with a desktop, harder to deal with in a laptop. My current laptop external drive is a 60G iPod. There are a plethora of cheap USB external drives from 160 GB up.

Hard drive capacity is going up too. About mid 2005, Hitachi and Seagate announced a "perpendicular" format for recording on magnetic media that will increase the capacity of the 8.9 cm desktop type drives to a terabyte by 2007 with laptop drives expanding to 200+ GB. Capacity may double or triple beyond that in a couple of more years. By the next time that I need to upgrade, disk capacity will still naturally be exceeding the 4x rule.

As of June 6, 2005, Apple formally announced that they are shifting from the IBM PPC processor to those made by Intel. Apple's avowed reason for this change was that IBM was not headed where Apple wanted to go in terms of power consumption. The latest Intel processors are more power efficient than any of the current IBM processors and, according to Apple, are going to stay that way for quite a while. Apple was also very upset at IBM for constrained processor deliveries and processor costs. Intel may have cut Apple a better financial deal as well. We'll have to see how this works out. It'll be summer 2006 before we see many of the new Apple computers with Intel inside. My PowerBook G4 will have to do for awhile longer as I wasn't planning on upgrading until I could get a dual core desktop system anyway. Performance wise, it won't make much difference if the CPU is from Intel or IBM. I also have to assume that Apple will support the PPC for a long time into the future. Who knows, at some time they might switch back or ship both kinds. Since the Intel systems will run PPC applications via the Rosetta emulator and newer applications will be compiled using native code for both CPUs, the average user probably won't notice the difference.

Wintel hardware will evolve in much the same way but I doubt that Windows will follow suit. It's been many years since XP and it looks like Vista (aka Longhorn, Shorthorn, LongVista etc) will not be that significant. There is some rumbling that Vista may not even run well on all but the highest end computers forcing a hardware upgrade for those with less than top end hardware. We'll have to wait and see what happens here as well. However, the evolution of Windows will have little impact on me as it would be cold day before I turn to the dark side.

I'll be pondering this more as time goes on and the type of available hardware changes. Email me if you have any comments.

Update 11 Jan 06

On Jan 11, 2006, Apple dropped the first shoe. They released an iMac with a dual processor Intel chip that specmarks out at roughly 5 to 6 times the performance of my G4 Powerbook. It met my specs so I pulled the trigger and ordered one, a 20" version. It has over 4 times the disk space but, when it arrives anyway, 1/4 of the RAM. That will get fixed soon with a 1 G stick as 1.5 GB will be enough.

Apple also released an updated version of this Powerbook, now called a MacBook Pro. It has about 5 times the CPU performance as this PowerBook, 1.5 times the disk and the typical 0.5 GB of stock RAM. The display has better resolution and is brighter. It may also consume more power when running as indicated by the power brick that comes with it (85 watts vs 65 watts) although Apple has indicated that it will run for about the same time as a G4 Powerbook (which is not nearly long enough). I don't know if one core can be shut down and the other underclocked to preserve the battery better. In any event, it'll run hotter than this one. I expect that the iBooks will become MacBooks in the coming months, maybe one of them will be a sub notebook.

Update 17 Jan 06

The iMac arrived yesterday and I spent the evening using the Migration Assistant moving about 40 G of stuff from the PowerBook to the new iMac and otherwise getting it set up. The computer is very fast EXCEPT when all the free RAM (of which there isn't much) is consumed. When the system starts dipping into virtual memory very heavily, it bogs right down. More RAM is already on order, it is REALLY needed.

This machine has some problems that I did not anticipate, however, these issues are related to me and not the computer. The screen is too big, I can't keep all of it in the lower lens of my bifocals at the same time. Also, the system is a little too tall for me. I'd prefer it to snuggle down against the desk. With the Powerbook, both the whole screen and the keyboard were in my field of view at the same time at a natural viewing angle for the lower bifocal lens. I have to hold my head at a more upright angle to see the screen and I've had to relearn to touch type without being able to focus on the keyboard. The "foot" of this computer is not easily replaceable. I still may be able to find some other kind of mount that lowers the whole works by 3" or so.

Update 29 Jan 06

The iMac is working out well, it needed RAM in a big way though. The second part of the plan may be delayed. The rumor mills are indicating that the next small laptop will be an iBook like thing but it won't be in the sub-notebook class described above. Further, my old iBook just got rejuvenated a little. My wife's iBook G4 got a disk upgrade to 100 GByte. It's old 30 G disk got transplanted into the older iBook for an extra $15. Unless the old iBook totally dies, it will provide the laptop part of the solution for awhile longer. Even though it is a little heavy, with my one extra battery I can get about 9+ hours out of it. I'd have to carry $500 worth of batteries to get that life from the Powerbook.

Update 26 Mar 06

The iMac is still working well, I've gotten used to the screen height but I would still like to lower it. The foot is not as replaceable as I thought, nobody seems to make one. It's got 2 G of RAM now and beachballs are rare indeed. The Airport implementation has difficulties but I've worked around that until a firmware upgrade is available. It runs very fast and overall I am pleased. Universal binaries are showing up fairly regularly, the only thing really missing is a Windows Media player that works in Universal mode. In the meantime, I've got Camino set up to run native and Safari set to run under Rosetta so that the Flip4Mac plug in works to provide Windows Media service when unenlightened web pages serve out WMV.

Update 9 Apr 06

A couple of days ago, Apple announced BootCamp which allows an Intel Mac to dual boot Windows. This doesn't have much impact on me and I'm not going to bother with it because I simply have no need at all for Windows. It also seems to be an interim feature. I expect that some better version of Windows integration via Mac OS implementation is probably in the works that may utilize the virtualization features of the Intel CPU. This would be a reason for much more disk. Another OS would eat 30 gig or more with enough scratch space to make it even marginally usable.

Update 29 Apr 06

Just to prove that I have too much time on my hands, I created this little table summarizing the features some of the computers that I have around my home that run OS X. It basically shows were each system falls down (or doesn't). The table is actually an Excel spreadsheet that can be modified to suit. Other than the obvious non-portability, the iMac is excellent in every category. The next best is the G4 iBook due to it's portability. If it was lighter, it would be the portable computer that I will eventually want to replace my G3 iBook. However, I can't get my hands on it because my wife covets it too much.

Update 16 May 06

Apple did indeed announce the replacement for the PowerPC iBook. The new computer is called a MacBook as opposed to the MacBook Pro which replaced the PowerBook line. The new MacBook is nifty, not overly expensive and very powerful...just what I didn't want. It's a little larger than the old iBook, just as heavy and it'll get just as hot as my PowerBook, maybe hotter. Oh well... the old G3 iBook is going to see some longer service yet.

Update 21 May 06

After using the iMac for about 4 months, I am having difficulty figuring out what an average user will do with even more processing power, either in the form of faster clocks or more cores. This thing is faster than it needs to be. I also figure that the days of a single core computer are nearing their end. Unless the user is really looking for the cheapest possible system, adding a core will increase the price of a computer only incrementally but will increase it's sales value by much more.

I am having difficulty seeing the next "killer app" that will drive a real need for more CPU power. All I can see is:

• Heavy duty gaming
• Image processing
  • Still images
    • raw image processing
    • Photoshop
  • Video
    • Rendering
    • Movie production editing
    • Animation rendering
• Software development
• Engineering analysis

Except for gaming, most of these tasks are commercial or professional where time is money and the fastest possible computer will often make economic sense. Your average user doesn't need the kind of power being provided now by the highest end systems.

For users that like to burn or rip video, more smoke is good. iDVD is mostly CPU bound, but then most users can just let it run overnight. The only app that I have seen that uses most of both cores is HandBrake and it runs 75% nice so that even it doesn't load down the system. If you don't know what "nice" is, open Terminal and type "man nice." Nice sets task priorities so that a task can defer itself to other processes.

Update 8 Aug 06

The final shoe has dropped. After just 210 days, Apple announced the Mac Pro (to replace the G5 PowerMac) and an Intel based XServe. This completes the Intel transition and with amazingly few problems. These machines are all quad core offerings with the Intel "Woodcrest" 64 bit server processor. From the benchmarks that I've seen, its 1.5 to 2x faster doing real world things than the 2 GHz Core Duo iMac. One would think that it should be faster than that, but the "real world" stuff apparently doesn't take sufficient advantage of the 4 processor cores....yet.

The real advantage of the new processors is the full up 64 bit support which currently allow the use of 16 GB of RAM. The Core Duo can support only 2 GB now. However, for most users, 2 GB is plenty. I keep an eye on memory usage and I have very rarely seen all the free memory used up on my iMac. I also very rarely see the CPU load reach 200% (2 cores) for very long. For the vast majority of users, the MacPro is simply overpowered and an iMac would be much more appropriate.

Update 13 Aug 06

I've had a chance to handle a UMPC (Ultra Mobile Personal Computer aka Origami). This is a device that tries to be a full up personal computer in a handheld format. These devices run a full up version of Windows, but in a form factor that is considerably larger than a typical PDA. IMHO, this device is a loser. It tries to do too much with the limited resources that can be packed into it's form factor. The version that I looked at, a Samsung, was also VERY expensive at $1100. It's most serious problem is that it will only run for a couple of hours on a charge. It also uses a stylus for input which is very slow and tedious for many applications. For it to do computer like stuff, it needs a keyboard at least and maybe a larger display. It's way overpowered to use for PDA like stuff and it won't fit in a pocket like a PDA. Since it doesn't fold, the display is not protected during transport. Maybe some people will find a use for this kind of thing, but it looks to me like a niche product, and for a small niche at that.

Update 9 Sep 06

A few days ago, Apple quietly announced that the iMac family has been upgraded to the Core 2 Duo CPU. The 2nd version of the Core family is fully 64 bit and has a bit better performance at the same clock rate as the 32 bit Core CPU. The difference in word size means that the Core 2 family can theoretically address much more RAM than the 4 GB limit for the Core family. The Core Duo iMac could actually address only 2 GB because of other limitations. The Core 2 Duo iMac can only access 3 GB although the theoretical limit is vastly more. A upgrade from the Core Duo to the Core 2 Duo is clearly not economically justifiable.

At the same time, the low end Mac Mini was upgraded to use a Core Duo CPU (it was a Core Solo) and the clocks got a minor bump. The whole Macintosh line is now at least dual core.

About a month ago the Intel MacPro and XServe was also announced. They are, as expected, quad core machine using two Intel "Woodcrest" dual core server chips. The Core Duo (and later Core 2 Duo) CPUs are not configured to operate in a dual processor arrangement. Further, some enterprising souls have stuffed two quad core Kentsfield processors in a MacPro and it works.

Now Apple's future update path is pretty clearly indicated. The high end machines will have at least double the cores of the lower tier machines and also use the upper end of the Intel CPU lineup. I expect that this trend will continue as the quad core chips (Kentsfield) are released. The MacPro will get two quad core CPUs for a total of 8 cores. The middle tier iMac machines may get quad cores, but in a single CPU. The low tier machines may or may not get quad cores, it depends on cost.

According to my 4x rule, an upgrade from the early 2006 iMac Core Duo will not be economically practical until the iMac gets at least 4 higher performance cores. Even this will not reach 4x actual performance as there are few applications that can take reasonable advantage of 4 cores. The quad core MacPro benchmarks well less than twice as fast as the dual core machines at the same clock speed because the software used to run the tests can't keep 4 cores busy....yet. 8 cores will be even tougher to keep occupied all of the time.

There is a new version of OpenGL coming out that is able to take the 3D graphics portion of a single threaded application and run it on the second core of a dual core machine while the rest of the action runs on the first core. The applications must be recoded to take advantage of this capability but it apparently doesn't require heavy rewrites to do it so we will see these upgraded games coming out soon. This may be expandable to 4 cores later. The Sony PS3 cell processor works kind of this way with one general purpose core running the basis of the game and parcelling out graphics calculations to the 8 other special purpose cores.

Update 10 Sep 06

I still have one beef with the iMac, the display is not adequately adjustable in height. As a matter of fact, it's height is not adjustable at all. The new 24" iMac announced about a week ago now has a VESA compliant mount, none of the others do. The VESA mount allows an aftermarket adjustable mount to be installed. This is good. However, in my case it wouldn't help much as the "chin" at the bottom of the computer will still hold the display off the desk by about 4". I need it snuggled right down against the desk. If I hold my head at a comfortable angle, I loose the top half of the display due to my bifocals. This forces me to hold my head up and my neck gets sore after a while. In this regard, the old PowerBook was much better as the display was in exactly the right place ... for me anyway.

One obvious solution is to get a 2nd display for the iMac with a mount that will push the display right down against the desk. It turns out that there are few displays configured this way out of the box and only one that I have found (an HP which is too wide due the attached speakers) that is 21" or so (at least 1650 pixels wide). The iMac will support a 2nd display up to 1920x1200 in extended mode through its mini-DVI port and a $19 Apple adaptor cable.

It looks like the hot setup will be to find a display that is between 1650 and 1920 pixels wide and that has a VESA mount and then find a VESA mount that sits on a desk. Most of them want to hard attach to something via bolts or a clamp. I would end up with twice (at least) the display area and have a display that could transplant to some other computer in the future. It looks like this lashup would cost something around $700+. It would certainly be cheaper to get a set of single vision lenses for using with the computer, but I'm sure that I'd walk away with the wrong glasses more often than not.

I've used dual display computers in the past. The Macintosh II that I had at work many many moons ago had two displays, one 13" color and one 12" monochrome. I found it very handy to keep my mail, calendar and other utility windows on the monochrome display while I did the majority of my work on the color display. Dual displays are good, however, TWO 20+" displays can consume much of a whole desk.

After some market research I've found that a dual display approach will indeed be expensive. The 20" monitors run about $400. 24" monitors (1920x1200) run between $800 and $900. The VESA mount arm is another $130. An Apple 23" Cinema display runs $999 ($920 after an available discount) Plus $29 for a VESA adaptor and $19 for the mini DVI to standard DVI adaptor cable. I am leaning toward the Apple display because it is 1" smaller than the other 1920 wide displays and fits in my bifocals a little better. I also have more confidence (through experience) in Apple's product quality and support than the other manufacturers.

Update 13 Jan 07

MacWorld San Francisco has come and gone and still no ultra-light laptop nor any changes to the display line. Part of the world, at least, is abuzz about the iPhone which at first blush looks to be a pretty good stab at a convergent mobile device.

Its a phone, widescreen iPod, camera and web browser all rolled into one. However, it still has some of the drawbacks inherent in such a complex device. First, it is horribly expensive to buy and maintain. I figure that the 2 year plan will run $50-ish/month, so that by the end of the contract, a user will be out $1800. It doesn't appear to have much of any full PDA functionality although it may work ok as a read-only PDA.

This device is not for me, I'll keep my $80/year Tracfone for phone coverage, iPod for music and Sony Clie for full PDA functionality. I don't need web connectivity in my pocket at iPhone rates.

Update 18 Feb 07

The rumor mills are alight with ultra-light tidbits. Maybe there is one in the works after all. After looking at the CPU offerings from Intel and others, if one exists at all, it will probably use an ultra low voltage hafnium oxide 45 nm gate dual core with a fairly low clock, something like 1 GHz. The screen may be smaller, widescreen format is cited often in the blogs. It may be all flash RAM or it may be a hybrid of flash and an iPod-like 1.8" disk. It may or may not have an internal optical drive at all. An optical drive would be necessary considering that almost all software is distributed on CD/DVD now. However, it could be external, there is precedent for an external drive, my old PB-100 came with an external floppy and the PowerBook Duo used an external dock.

I've installed Parallels using W2k on the iMac Core Duo because my wife still wants PC access for some PC only software and to allow communication with her Dell Axim PDA. She's been using the iMac this way to the point that she is lusting after a Intel based Mac so that she doesn't have to use my iMac. She also wants all this in an ultra-light form factor so that she's torn between an existing MacBook and a vaporous ultra-light Mac.

Update 15 May 07

Apple announced a new MacBook this morning. It's similar to the previous model except for a minor speed bump and larger disks for the same price. Otherwise, it's the same computer.

The next versions out will probably be MacBook Pro's maybe with the Santa Rosa supporting chip set. The differences here are a faster frontside bus, much better graphics support (hardware shader), native 802.11n wireless, support for more USB ports (which Apple may not use) and support for flash RAM. The flash RAM is supposed to allow for faster booting, but this is an advantage primarily for Windows users who don't have access to a proper sleep mode. Mac users rarely shut their computers down so that faster booting is kind of a non-issue.

The rumors of an ultra-light are getting more strident, but there's no sign of one yet.

WWDC 07 Update 15 June 07

WWDC wraps up today with no hardware announcements although none was really expected. Apple did a minor speed bump on the MacBook and a more serious update on the MacBook Pro line in the weeks before WWDC. If they had wanted to announce new hardware, they would have waited until WWDC.

As I had expected, at some point my old G3 iBook would be left behind. According to the system requirements that leaked out of WWDC, Leopard will require a G4 or better computer. The iBook will still get Tiger 10.4.10 but that will be the end of the line for it.

Update 23 June 07

The iPhone is less than a week away and Apple has a new video on their website that demonstrates the features of the iPhone. This device looks like it might actually work as a convergent device. It is clearly a FAR better stab into this market than anything previous. Perhaps it will demonstrate an entirely new market.

iPhone detractors have wailed and whined about the "obvious" failures of the device. I suspect that this is just FUD because these "failures" seem to instead be conscious design decisions made by Apple.

• No 3rd party software! Apple has provided a method to use web pages and AJAX to write useful applications and still maintain a secure environment. Many such apps have appeared BEFORE the iPhone is even out. However, this still isn't good enough for some developers. I imagine that these guys have apps that they want to port but can't because they aren't written as web based applications. Too bad. The iPhone doesn't need big apps, it needs little single purpose apps that are available everywhere.
• The camera sucks! As if 2 megapixels isn't enough for snapshots and the lens couldn't be good enough to support the sharp focus that even a 2 megapixel sensor needs.
• There is only ONE camera and it can't used for videoconferences! Can you imagine how annoying it would be for someone to be talking on their phone in public AND doing a video conference? He would have to hold the phone in front of his face and speak loudly enough to complete tick off everybody nearby. No video conference = good plan.
• There isn't enough memory! Maybe for heavy duty music and video users, but its a phone! If one wants a portable entertainment device that will hold a whole video library, then buy a device intended for that niche job.
• No 3G! 3G takes more power to run, 2.5G is good enough for light duty work and 3G isn't implemented over nearly enough of the coverage area.
• No GPS! Again, takes power and not needed. Cell tower triangulation works well enough for E911 and finding a the user's location well enough to make Google Maps work.
• Battery life sucks! Apple just announced a moderate increase in battery life AND all the other stuff that is "missing" would all consume power and eat the battery alive. You can't have it all.
• No user replaceable battery! Could be a problem but it would add to the size and weight of the device. Also, the iPods don't have "replaceable" batteries and that hasn't killed them. It would be nice, however, to have a hot spare battery though. Apple really ought to think hard about this one. I'm sure that somebody will come up with a battery powered external recharger that uses the dock port. There are many of these out there already for more conventional cell phones.

However, the iPhone is still a convergent device and carries with it the woes that come with being a convergent device.

• It is expensive to buy
• It is horribly expensive to use (probably about $1000/year)
• It has good standby time, but as soon as the other neat stuff is being used, the thing STILL may not last a whole workday, especially after the battery degrades over the life of the phone.
• It will be expensive to replace if damaged and hand held devices often turn into hand dropped devices.
• If one function or feature becomes obsolete, the whole device needs to be upgraded. For example, Flash RAM storage would be hard to upgrade. If a future version has GPS and you decide that you MUST HAVE GPS, then it's new device time. If you just can't stand AT&T for any reason, then you are simply stuck.

An iPhone won't be following me home, but I am certain that it will attract many others who really want what it offers now. I hope that it is wildly successful primarily because it will give the rest of the cell phone industry a swift kick in the backside (which they sorely need) and force innovation. I also like it because Microsoft has the most to loose with eventual failure of their Windows Mobile plans, as if they haven't failed already. If the iPhone is successful, it will also prod Apple into making more types of embedded devices and eventually one of them will be something that I could use, like an ultralight laptop or a real PDA to replace my Clie when it eventually dies.

Imagine a small laptop with TWO screens. One virtual one in place of the keyboard (think thin) and a regular fold up screen. The virtual keyboard could be multitouch so that it would accept gestures as well, act as both the keyboard and trackpad, and change context on the fly to other input formats as well. The need for backlighting would be a problem though as it would draw more power that a conventional electromechanical keyboard.

Further, think of a tablet type computer with only one screen, an iPhone stretched to 10 or 11 inches wide. The keyboard shows up transparently on the lower half of the screen when needed and vanishes when not needed, for example for viewing a movie. If the display had adequate viewing angle, which the newer displays do, then the thing would work laying flat on a desk or on a lap. With the hard non-scratch surface like the iPhone, it wouldn't need a lid either although some kind of case or sleeve might be a good plan

Update 30 June 07

The iPhone was released last night and it looks like it went pretty well for most people. Some are having serious issues activating their phones, this looks like an AT&T problem that will eventually be sorted out. Bummer for those folks though.....

I went by an Apple Store today to touch one. There was still a line of about 20 people out front waiting for a new shipment. It looks like the shipment had arrived because when I left, everybody was standing. There were about 10 iPhones configured for display at one table. Every one was being fondled by somebody.

I had about 5 minutes with an iPhone and I find that it is a pretty slick package, for what it is. It is a content consumption device, not a content creation device. It may run a version of OS X, but it isn't set up to replace, or even get close to replacing, a portable computer.

However, within it's scope, it seems to do quite well. I think that the hype over the keyboard is entirely overblown. It took me about 15 seconds to get used to it and I was flying in two thumb mode and I have big thumbs. It does a good job at rendering web pages that were not designed for a small screen (like this one). By turning the iPhone sideways to allow larger text, it was readable without sideways scrolling or magnification. When the iPhone is held sideways, the location bar goes away so that you have to turn it portrait to go to type a new URL. I made a phone call, it worked. I didn't get a chance to play with the iPod function or the other programs on it.

Update 7 August 07

Apple announced a new iMac today, faster 64 bit CPU, twice as much available RAM, more disk, 802.11n, a brushed aluminum case and a new keyboard. All good stuff, but it still has the chin, although it might be an inch shorter. The 24" version still accepts a VESA adaptor, but the chin prevents the display from sitting really low. Since, even with newly adjusted glasses, I still get neck discomfort due to the screen height of the older 20" iMac, I'll probably have to bite the bullet and get an external display. I estimate that I'll have bring the display down 6" for comfort, the new iMac would come down maybe 4" at best and cost a lot more.

Update 14 August 07

After determining that the new iMac, as nice as it appears, is not sufficient to trigger an upgrade, I bought a 20" Cinema display, which I have had for almost a week and am using now. Even using the stock stand, the bottom of the viewable screen sits 2" closer to the desk than the 20" iMac and even this little bit has been a significant improvement. When Amazon.com gets around to shipping the VESA arm, it'll be 4" lower than it is now, just 1" from the desktop. The thing worked perfectly, no dead pixels and I have twice the screen real estate. I put all the secondary stuff on the iMac display (now the secondary display). The Cinema display has the menu bar, Dock, Finder windows and is the focus for document and browser windows that I spend the most time viewing. iTunes, Activity Monitor, Mail, iChat and other stuff sit on the secondary display, visible at a glance when needed. Dashboard widgets are similarly spread across both displays. This is working out quite well.

I did have to move my Dock. I used to keep it on the right edge because, many many moons ago, the Dock would not hide itself and so many applications were not Dock aware and would underlay the dock at the bottom of my iBook screen. I got used to it there and never moved it back. That location now is in the middle of the display area so it had to move. After nearly a week, I am still not used to it, I am still reaching to the right to get the Dock. Old habits die hard.

Update 18 August 07

Amazon.com delivered the Ergotron VESA arm today and it got installed almost immediately. Now the monitor is in the right spot for me, probably a very wrong spot for most people, but I like it. I tend to have document windows open on the left side of the Cinema display so I offset the keyboard to the left so that my hands are immediately below the location of the window in which I am usually working I can see the whole screen and keyboard in the lower lenses of my bifocals without moving my head and my head is positioned ergonomically correctly. With the keyboard and display in this position, it is arranged like a 20" laptop.

Update 21 August 07

A couple of weeks ago, my wife bought a mid range MacBook, the 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo model with 2 G of RAM. She had just run her G4 iBook out of smoke, too many videos would stutter on playback unless she quit everything else running. The MacBook has none of these speed issues and she likes it a lot, except that it indeed runs very hot. She bought a lapdesk so that she could place it on her lap. This is now the fastest computer in the house, probably about 40% faster than my 2 GHz Core Duo iMac. I passed on an update to a newer iMac this time around because the new ones aren't enough of an improvement to make it worth is. Now that almost every computer is pretty fast, how fast is fast enough? I ran a simple test.

Handbrake consumes lots of CPU resources, although some of that is nice so that it can be deferred. H.264 movie playback also consumes quite a bit of CPU resources and it sensitive to real time resource contention. I ran Handbrake to rip a DVD to an H.264 file, ran a backup to an external USB disk and then played an iTunes H.264 movie (1080p) switching between Full Screen mode (which clips the edges on my 1650 pixel wide screen) and Fit to Screen mode to see if all this activity did anything to the playback. The answer is no, the video played back fine with no skips at all, the backup proceeded at the data rates that I would have expected and the Handbrake encoding process slowed down from about 40 fps with nothing else going on to about 25 fps. All this time, the graphic system was driving both screens. Both CPUs were pegged at 100%, but it all worked with no perceptible impact on the user experience. From this I can conclude that this iMac is plenty fast enough, more CPU smoke is not needed now. The lowest end Mac offered by Apple today is a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini which is probably faster than this Core Duo iMac although the mini's graphics performance will be worse. The bottom of the line is likely faster than an "average" user could ever actually use.

Update 28 August 07

I stopped by the MacMall computer store today and played with an new aluminum iMac. I have these findings.

The keyboard is different, but I think that it is good. I like the older keyboard too. The new one has much less key travel than the old one, but the feel is good and the flat top keys don't seem to bother me at all. I do like the lower position of the keys due to the flatter keyboard. For reference, I am not a keyboard snob and I have become used to many different kinds. The best keyboard that I have ever used is the one on an IBM Selectric typewriter (the ones with the font ball) as the keys had lots of travel and seemed to fall away after the first bit of resistance. This new Apple keyboard is completely different, but it seems to work.

You will either love or hate the glossy screen. The colors seem brighter and more saturated and the blacks deeper than the matte screen iMac sitting next to it, but the glare from reflected lights could be a deal killer. This display computer was in a large room with ceiling lights extending behind me for quite a distance. I had to tip the display upright to eliminate the reflection of the furthest sets of lights. Other positions were intolerable. In my office at home, the only lighting is directly overhead and it's reflection would not be visible in the screen. With a reflected light in the screen, I had to turn the brightness all the way up to try to wash out the reflection, then the screen was much too bright. If I ran the screen brightness down to minimum, where I like it, the reflected glare was totally unacceptable. If you are considering a glossy screen, you need to CAREFULLY evaluate your lighting situation. Place a mirror where you have your computer screen and see if you can see any lamp fixtures, windows or other light sources (including objects that may produce a bright reflection from another light source) in it. If so, you are going to have problems. If not, then the image will be better than on a matte screen.

Other than the aluminum skin, the rest of it is pretty much the same as my older iMac although the newer one will be somewhat faster and it supports more RAM. I need neither the speed nor the memory.

Update 04 October 07

While getting on a cruise ship about a week ago, I thought that I lost my Sony Clie PDA. I was in a minor panic and quite bummed about it until I found it a day later. I'd stuffed it in an unusual pocket of my carry on at the security checkpoint Xray machine and I had forgotten where it was.

However, this got me to thinking about what I am going to do when it really does die or it really does get lost or just becomes so obsolete that it isn't supported anymore. Bit rot^* may get it before physical rot does. I've come to depend on the damn thing to keep my schedule, to do items, and other personal stuff. This is one of the better implementations of a Palm device and I'm not to thrilled about buying another, less capable, version of a dying breed. With the Missing Sync, it integrates with the Macintosh very well, much better than with the Palm Desktop stuff that Palm provided but no longer supports.

Apple makes attempts to allow OS X play reasonably with Windows, but Microsoft makes little effort in return. Windows is generally allergic to OS X. Windows Mobile is even worse. There are third party solutions that try to make Windows Mobile play well with OS X, but Windows Mobile is such a kludge that I surely don't want a Windows Mobile device anyway. But what else is there besides Palm?

I don't want an iPhone because I don't want the monthly bill. I hate subscriptions. I use a prepay cell phone because for all I use it, it costs me about $6/month although to get that rate I have to "commit" for a year by buying a one year airtime card. An iPhone doesn't make that good of a PDA anyway. For what I use a PDA for, old Clie is functionally better than an iPhone although the UI is a little dated. The iPod touch is not even close to a PDA, it's pretty much limited to playback or web surfing functions which is fine for it's intended scope. I need a REAL PDA and Apple doesn't make one.... yet. I hope that they get religion and extend their usage of OS X into a real PDA device to fill an obvious gaping hole in their product line. Maybe by the time that I need a replacement for the Clie, Apple will have imbedded OS X into yet another class of mobile device. I can hope anyway.

Update 16 January 2008

Yesterday was Mac World San Francisco. An ultra-light laptop was announced, the MacBook Air. It's fairly expensive, at $1800 and up, way up. With a slight processor speed bump and a SSD, it's $3100. It's almost everything I was looking for, see the specs table above, but the lack of FireWire and the cost of the SSD may be a deal killer for me. I still have a FireWire video camera and I do want to be able to stream video from tape to disk while on longer trips, such as the one I am on right now. I am in Antarctica on a cruise ship and I've used the DV streaming over FireWire to my PowerBook G4. I brought it this time because on the last trip, I just ran the old 500 MHz iBook completely out of gas. Further, Apple left all G3's and many slower G4's behind with the Leopard update.

If I decided to get a MacBook Air, which is doubtful, I'd get one with the flash memory Solid State Disk drive, but later when the prices of SSD's have come down considerably. I have a couple of external USB disks which are small and light, one is used for Time Machine, the other to store the video. Each is 160 GB, so that rather limited capacity of the 64 GB SSD is not a big problem. The PowerBook has an 80 GB disk that currently has 25 GB free. I could live with 64 GB.

The battery life is 5 hours, but that is still a little short, IMHO. Apple achieved good power performance with the Core 2 Duo processor and LED backlit display but then they put a small 37 watt hour battery in it. I'll want to see some real world tests of battery life comparing the standard 80 GB hard disk vs. the optional 64 GB SSD. The battery life with the SSD should be a little better as well as providing considerably faster performance.

It is also possible that somebody will come up with a USB to FireWire adaptor similar to the optional Apple Ethernet Adaptor. USB is actually slower than FireWire and it doesn't provide as much DC power, but a reduced performance FireWire interface would still work for many of FireWire's tasks, such as streaming DV which has a data rate of only about 4 MB/sec.

Update 27 January 2008

I've been touring around Antarctica and South America since Macworld, and I've finally had a chance to read some of the reviews after returning to Buenos Aires for a day before flying home. Apple has done their typical product design thing and built an 80% solution. This doesn't mean that it is an 80% product, but instead it is a very highly focused product which is a 100% solution for 80% of the ultralight market. This means that 20% of the potential customers will find some "important" feature lacking. It has the very minimum of features that are required to do a particular job. It may not be intended to be a user's primary computer although in some cases, it could be.

Most consumer electronics manufacturers wouldn't dare leave something out. Instead they pack in stuff that most of the customers will not likely use just to make sure that no potential customer finds a feature lacking. They love to cover the products with stickers touting every product feature in order to hook the most possible customers and in the process their products become unfocused. This is primarily because all the manufactures, except Apple, produce me too products that would simply die in the market if a customer could get nearly the same thing in competitor's version but with that one missing feature. For some reason, Apple gets away with doing it differently. Apple won't corner the market, in fact they might not even sell one to me, but I think that the product will do well.

There are a few things that the MacBook Air doesn't have that I think that I need. I agree that I can get along without the optical drive and therefore I don't need the size and bulk. However, for the time being I cannot get along without FireWire and I think that I won't be able to get along without a hot swappable battery like my Powerbook has, especially since the MacBook Air battery life is only 5 hours at best, less under heavy usage. I have a 2nd PowerBook battery and I do use it. I also want a SSD, but I am not yet willing to pay the early adopter price, which right now, is very steep and mostly beyond Apple's control. Apple however, is probably one of the leading forces pushing flash memory prices down simply because they use so much of it.

Even though my PowerBook is larger, heavier, slower, hotter and has really poor battery life, it does have FireWire so that I can stream DV from my camcorder. I have a good camcorder and I don't feel like buying another one that doesn't use FireWire, assuming that such an animal exists. I'll be holding on to the PowerBook for awhile longer. Even traveling, I find that I use it mostly on a desk so that only the weight actually matters. During the last trip, which included an 11 hour airplane ride and another 4 hour ride each way, I did use the PowerBook in a coach seat, if nothing else than to recharge two iPods for the rest of the flight. It was cramped, but it sort of fit.

Update 3 February 2008

The MacBook Air probably represents the immediate future of an Apple ultralight. If it flops, Apple will not invest in a new design soon. If it is successful, Apple's focused design philosophy will be demonstrated and Apple will not likely make another similar product for the even smaller niche not covered by the MacBook Air. This is what Apple does. They design for the biggest part of the market and leave the rest for others to pick off. This materially conserves design and production resources and provides the highest profit margin at the expense of some market share. Since they won't design an ultralight specifically for me, I either have to accept it for what it is or pass. Right now, it's a pass. This is fair.

In order to even consider the MacBook Air, am going to make a leap of faith and assume that some enterprising aftermarket vendor will make a USB to FireWire dongle for the thing that will at least support enough of the FireWire specification to allow connection to a camcorder. DV streams at something less than 40 Mbits/sec, and putting latency issues aside, this is well within USB's capability of 480 Mbits/sec (which is usually not realized in real life). I am assuming that somebody could make a combo USB/FireWire hub that runs off the Air USB port and utilizes a driver to route FireWire requests to USB and then the hub reroutes them back to it's, powered or unpowered, FireWire port. Until I get some other kind of video camera, I cannot accept the MacBook Air. If such an item ever becomes available, then I will reconsider the MacBook Air.

The USB port on the Air is reported to have somewhat extra power output capability to support the SuperDrive option which takes more than the 2.5 watts that USB is specified to provide. It turns out that most portable USB HDD's also need somewhat more than 2.5 watts. My WD Passport drives won't run off a single USB port of the PowerBook, but they will run off the USB port of my wife's G4 iBook. To get it to run off the PowerBook USB, I have to use a funny two headed USB cable that plugs into BOTH USB ports or use a powered hub. This indicates to me that the USB HDD power requirement is right on the edge the actual USB port capabilities and that the drives would PROBABLY run on the beefed up USB port of a MacBook Air. This means also means that a small, lightweight unpowered USB hub MAY be able to support one drive plus a mouse, and maybe some other lightweight device such as a PDA. I am assuming desktop usage with all this stuff attached. Right now, I use a powered USB hub to support TWO USB drives, a mouse and the PDA, but this only works at a place with AC or DC power. I have a lightweight 100 watt inverter with and airline adaptor but I have yet to sit in an airplane seat with a power outlet. At at desk, I use one drive for Time Machine and the other to dump DV. I do this in parallel now, but I could use them one at a time as necessary.

Since I am trying to determine if the MacBook Air can replace my PowerBook as a portable device, I will contrast the two. I use an iMac as my primary computer, so usage in that context is NOT considered. The table is sorted more or less by the features that are the most important to me.

What does this all mean? It means that the MacBook Air takes away the connectivity to my camcorder and leaves me $3100 lighter for a weight savings of about 3.5 lbs. Everything else is about a wash. The cost/benefit trade says that I should stick with the PowerBook for now.

Update 3 April 2008

Now that the hype over the MacBook Air has died down a little, I am still looking forward to an ultralight. The MBA deal killer for me was the lack of FireWire to support my DV video camera. It's a Sony TRV33, an older high end model (at the time) but after doing some market research, it is still competitive with newer cameras, hence I am not inclined to drop a grand or more to get a camera that doesn't use FireWire. These would be the flash or HDD models that can be accessed via USB. Video is imported file by file from the camera, not streamed in real time (which requires FireWire). The features that my camera doesn't offer are HD (beyond 480p although it will do 16:9 widescreen at reduced resolution), a long optical zoom and a still photo capability beyond 1 megapixel. The long optical zoom (>>10x) is the most important feature and it isn't even available on the upper end cameras without resorting to digital zoom. HD is nice, but not necessary for home movies, especially because I don't have a wide screen TV. Since I use the still photos mostly for inclusion into web pages where I downsize them anyway, a high resolution still imager is not critical. Therefore a camera upgrade is not in the cards until something MUCH better comes out or my current camera dies.

Further, the MBA uses a Core 2 Duo processor which is still a power hog although it is a very good performer. Intel has finally released their "Atom" series of processors which do indeed have significantly improved power performance, less than one tenth of the power that the Core 2 Duo uses in some configurations. Usage of even one of the "higher" performance Atom processors at 2.5 watts or less could easily double the battery life of some future version of the MBA and make the non-removable battery pretty much of a non-issue. It is likely that Apple was thinking along those lines when they designed the MBA, they probably knew that the battery was truly undersized but that this would be "fixed" by technology improvements in future models. They didn't feel the need to compromise on the product design when they knew that the existing (or even smaller) battery would eventually be good enough.

An Atom powered MBA, or something with even a smaller form factor, won't have the performance of the MBA by quite a wide margin but following the arguments presented above in this page, the MBA doesn't actually need the smoke that it contains. It's akin to a small car with a BIG engine and a small gas tank. It could afford to lose the oversized engine. As long as the computer can handle H.264 playback at the full size of the screen, then the processor is fast enough.

The only irreplaceable need for FireWire now is to support FireWire equipped DV cameras which are probably a dying breed. The loss of the FireWire port on the MBA is a forward looking position with the acceptance of some current awkwardness. The rest of the usage of FireWire can be worked around, maybe with some bother. There is no workaround for FireWire DV camera support. This is typical Apple product design. They will kill off a feature that may still be needed by some users when the unit is initially sold but will not be needed in a few years time. FireWire, especially in the S3200 configuration, will probably be around for a long time on desktop machines simply because it is so fast, and in those markets, speed matters.

So, while I wait for Apple to forge ahead in the ultralight market, which I am sure it will do, I will still be lugging the AlBook around. The trigger for a new computer won't be the computer itself, but my video camera. At such a time that I need or want a new camera, then a new computer can might along to match it.

Update 16 April 2008

Since the ultra-light notebook outlook probably won't change much for year or more (for me anyway), my attention is turned more toward the PDA end. I realize that Steve Jobs killed the last PDA that Apple had (the Newton) and that he thinks that a PDA without a phone is a loser. I disagree. I have a Palm 4 PDA (Sony Clie) and my wife has a Dell Axim (Pocket PC, aka Windows Mobile). We use our PDA's heavily. I've dropped the Clie, again, and the hinge is getting very sloppy, but it still works fine. Eventually, I'm going to need to replace it. Windows Mobile isn't going to cut it. PalmOS is virtually dead. I need something that runs a good OS and that can be carried in a shirt pocket so an UMPC type thing won't do it either. I'd also like to ditch the stylus.

However, it's the applications that make or break the product. Currently the iPhone and iPod Touch don't have much, this will change in a few months when Apple enables 3rd party dedicated apps. This what I use on the PDA now, pretty much in the order of importance.

• To Do List. The Clie integrates fairly well with the Mac OS To Do items via the Missing Sync. The user interface is actually much superior to that found either in Mail or iCal. Anxiety is a 3rd party application that provides a reasonable and usable interface on the Mac side. I use the To Do List every day to keep shopping lists, Honey Do Lists and other similar stuff. There is nothing even close currently on the iPhone or iPod Touch.
• Date Book. The Date Book app on the Clie highly useful. I use it as an alarm clock and reminder, especially when I am traveling. At these times, the Date Book is the most important application.
• Klondike is a simple solitaire game but it is highly useful when I have some time to burn waiting in a line somewhere.
• Adobe Reader is useful when I have PDF'd up some maps or other stuff that I might need later, especially when traveling.
• Memo Pad is useful for keeping short notes.

I am hoping that the 3rd part application developers will provide some sort of well designed applications for the iPod Touch. I still don't even want an iPhone because I refuse to pay the monthly rate.

[ Previous Tip ] [ Mac Tips ] [ Next Tip ]